United States v. Hall
| Decision Date | 10 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 509-54. |
| Citation | 126 F. Supp. 620 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. Norman H. HALL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Frederick G. Smithson, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
George E. C. Hayes, William B. Bryant, Curtis P. Mitchell, Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Defendants have filed various motions before trial to suppress evidence and return property, to suppress arrest warrants, for statement of witnesses and to inspect documents, and for severance.
Certain arrest and search warrants were issued on the basis of an affidavit by police officers describing their observations of a number of persons and premises begun because of reliable information received that defendant Hall was using a 1949 Ford Sedan to pick up numbers. With respect to the search warrant for the premises 2001½ 18th Street, N.W., a barber shop, the following course of conduct was established by surveillance: Hall would enter and leave several other premises, staying only a few minutes in each place, at a time when numbers bets are customarily picked up; his pockets would be bulging; he would enter the barber shop, take slips of paper from the drawer of a cabinet therein, place them in his pocket, and leave with pocket bulging; he was later seen to receive or transfer a paper bag to another, to pick up a known numbers operator, and to enter or leave a known numbers drop. The observation of the slips of paper picked up in the barber shop, when they are not the stock in trade of that type of business, was sufficient to show taint of the premises and to establish probable cause for the search of the barber shop and the arrest of John Doe No. 2, defendant Williams, who had been seen placing slips in the drawer. At the hearing, defendants offered testimony in the nature of a defense of alibi and pointed to certain alleged inconsistencies between statements in this affidavit and the affidavits in three other cases. The Court does not find this testimony sufficiently impeaches the credibility of the officers or the truthfulness of their affidavit to indicate lack of probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant for premises 2001½ 18th Street, N.W.
However, where there is probable cause to search a place because of the activities of a suspected numbers operator viewed in the light of the total atmosphere of the case, it does not mean there is also probable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. United States
...on the ground that probable cause had been lacking for the issuance of the arrest warrants directed against them.3 United States v. Hall, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 620. The Government appealed the order for suppression to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The ......
-
Smith v. Hubbard
...38 Cal.2d 315, 239 P.2d 876 (unlawful assembly to view hot-rod race); Griffin v. State, 200 Md. 569, 92 A.2d 743. And see, United States v. Hall, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 620 (conducting a lottery).12 State v. Hayes, 244 Minn. 296, 70 N.W.2d 110.13 See, United States v. Rembert, D.C.S.D.Tex., 284 ......
-
United States v. Long
... ... Johnson, D.C.D.C.1953, 113 F.Supp. 359. Even if the facts in that case were identical with the facts in the instant case, which they decidedly are not, the Court would have to find probable cause here since the Johnson case has inferentially been overruled. In United States v. Hall, D.C.D.C.1955, 126 F.Supp. 620, the District Court suppressed evidence "for the reasons stated by this Court in United States v. Johnson" (126 F.Supp. at page 621). The Court of Appeals, however, found that probable cause had been established, and in companion cases, reversed. United States v ... ...
-
United States v. Harruff
...was known was the suspicious behavior of the defendant. United States v. Johnson, 113 F.Supp. 359 (D. C., 1955) and United States v. Hall, 126 F.Supp. 620 (D.C., 1955). However these are distinguishable from the instant case in that here the government has brought, in the affidavit, suffici......